
A.PPENDIX. 



Those who Viave never examiner] the claims aavanved 
In favor of Philip Francis, may be benefited by this 
Appendix. I think it wiU herein be made out, that 
his case has been founded oh spurions and uuantheiiti- 
cated records. The cas^^ may be stated as follows: 

On March 3, 17V2, there was published, under the 
supervision of Junius, a genuine edition of the Letters. 
In his Preface, he states: ^^ The encouragement oiven 
to a multitude of spurious mangled publications of the 
Letters of Junius persuades me that a complete edition, 
corrected and improved by the author, will be favor- 
ably received. . . . This edition contains all the 
letters of Junius, Philo Junius,^^ etc. 

Forty years after this edition was published, when 
Mr. H. S. Woodfall, the publisher, was dead, his son 
issued a new edition, in which he collected from the 
files of the Advertiser what he supposed to be other 
letters of Junius, and classed them as Miscellaneous 
Letters. This new edition, which is called Woodfall's, 
was first published in 1812. Upon the heel of this 
edition, John Taylor publislied his ^^ Junius Identi- 
fied,^' supporting his claims in favor of Francis nearly 
21 (323) 



324 APPENDIX. 

or quite altogether on the Miscellaneous Letters. Till 
then the claims of Francis were never brought forward. 
I now proceed to show that these Miscellaneous Let- 
ters are not all genuine. 

1. They show in many instances internal evidence 
of fraud. Private Note No. 61 is as follows: 

^^ Sunday, May 3, 1772. 
'^I am in no manner of hurry about the books. 3 
hope the sale has answered. I tliink it will always be 
a saleable book. The inclosed is fact, and 1 wish it 
could be printed to-morrow. It is not worth an- 
nouncing. Tlie proceedings of this wretch are unac- 
countable. There must be some mystery in it, which 
I hope will soon be discovered, to his confusion. 
Next to the Duke of Grafton, I verily believe that 
the blackest heart in the kingdom belongs to Lord 
Barrington." 

The above note accompanied a letter signed Scotus, 
published in the Advertiser, May 4, 1772. Now, 
mark! The private note which accompanied this let- 
ter of Scotus says : " This is facf And the letter of 
Scotus opens as follows : " To Lord Barrington : My 
lord, / am a Scotchman/' etc. He then goes on, with- 
out dignity or grace, to talk bluntly to Lord Barring- 
ton, and with an egotistical defense of the Scotch. He 
says : '^ There is courage at least in oiir composition. '^ 
" For the future, my lord, be more sparing of your re- 
flections on the Scotch." This letter and the note ac- 
companying it are yet in existence in the original, and 
are called genuine. Now, that they are forgeries is 
quite evident from tlie whole spirit of Junius in regard 
to the Scotch. In Letter 44, he says of Mr. Wedder- 
burne : " I speak tenderly of this gentleman, for when 



APPENDIX. 



treachery is in question, I think we should make al- 
lowances for a Scotchman." He speaks of the Scotch 
" cunning," " treachery," and '' fawning sycophancy," 
of " the characteristic prudence, the selfish nationality, 
the indefatigable smile, the persevering assiduity, the 
everlasting profession of a discreet and moderate re- 
sentment." This last quotation may be found in the 
'^-\ Preface, and was written about four months prior to 
^~ the publication of the letter of Scotus. Now, is the 
<1 positive evidence of the genuine Letters to be set aside 
^ by this fugitive note and letter of Scotus f Reason 
and Common Sense say not. Here then one of the 
^ Miscellaneous Letters, and one of the private letters to 
- Woodfall are proven to be forgeries. How many more 
^ may have to go the same way ? Even the nationality 
of Francis is against this one of Scotus, for he was 
an Irishman. 

It may be well to remark, in passing, that as the 
manuscript of this letter of Scotus is still in existence, 
the claims of Francis founded on handwriting will 
have to go the same way, for proof on genuine hand- 
writing is doubtful, but proof on disguised handwrit- 
ing is icorthless. All that can be proven from hand- 
writing is, Francis may have been the author of this 
forged letter of Scotus, and other letters of Vetera7i, 
which were written solely from personal spite toward 
Lord Barrington. 

2. I would call attention to another manifest forgery 
of a private note and letter. The note is No. 8, vol. 
i, p. 198, and the letter is No- 58, vol. iii, p. 218, 
"VVoodfalPs edition. The letter is one of low wit, and 
somewhat vulgar in its construction, and is an answer 



326 APPENDIX. 

to another signed Jimia, probably written by Mr. Caleb 
Whiteford. The note says : ^' The last letter you 
printed was idle and improper, and, I assure you, 
printed against my own opinion. The truth is, there 
are people about me ivhom I icould icish not to contra- 
dict, and who had rather see Junius in the papers ever 
so improperly than not at alU^ The question now is : 
Did those people, for whose benefit he wrote the letter, 
keep the secret which has baffled the world ? — for these 
people must have known him to be Junius. And did 
Junius write falsely, when he said in his Dedication 
more than two years afterward : *' I am the sole de- 
pository of my own secret, and it shall perish with 
me?^^ Did Junius write falsely when he said : "This 
edition contains all the letters of Junius ? ^^ for this one 
which he cast out, and is in the Miscellaneous collec- 
tion, was signed Junius. Besides, the handwriting is 
different from the genuine notes. Compare No. 8, spu- 
rious, with No. 3, genuine, vol. i, Woodfall's edition. 

Here is clear evidence of forgery in 'two cases, not 
from handwriting be it remembered, but from internal 
evidence. May there not be many more such cases? 
Moreover, from the style and spirit of all the miscel- 
laneous letters written after the one signed Atticus, 
and printed November 14, 1768, there is no evidence 
whatever of the hand or head of Junius. Prior to 
this time Junius had been writing to get his hand in, 
and his contributions appeared over the signatures of 
Atticus, Lucius, C, and a few others, but all prior 
to the above date. Junius proper began with his 
famous Letter of January 21, 1769, and closed in just 
three years to a day. 



APPENDIX. 327 

I am now prepared to state: In the comparison of 
Thomas Paine with Junius I did not suffer myself in 
a single instance to go outside of the genuine edition ; 
because I plainly saw, after a long and critical study 
of the Letters, that there was no safe footing outside 
of it. Whatever, therefore, has been established in 
style, character, occupation, rank, opinion, etc., in fa- 
vor of Paine, has at least this merit : its foundation 
is good. I propose now to show that this can not be 
said in favor of Francis. 

I have given on pages 190 and 191 the summing 
up of the main argument of John Taylor in favor of 
Francis, by Mr. Macaulay. Macaulay writes only 
as a reviewer of Taylor, not an original investigator; 
and a reviewer, too, like many at this day, without 
searching at the fountain head for the facts in the case. 
Let us now look at the five points Mr. Taylor makes: 

" First, that he was acquainted with the technical 
forms of the Secretary of State's office." Under this 
Taylor begins by observing : '^ One method of discov- 
ering the rank and staiion of Junius is to see with 
whose names he is most familiar." He then savs : 
^^ The only persons to whom Junius applies epithets 
of familiarity are Welbore Ellis, Esq., Lord Barring- 
ton, Messrs. Rigby, Whateley, Bradshaw, and Ciia- 
mier." Taylor then proves Junius to have been 
familiar with Whateley by a long quotation from 
miscellaneous letters, one without a signature, and 
one signed Henricus. See Taylor's Junius Identified, 
page 54. In this connection comes a very important 
disclosure in regard to Mr. Grenville. I will quote 
Taylor, page 54: "Comparing these indications of 



328 APPENDIX, 

personal acquaintance with the opportunities afforded 
Sir P. Francis, we find that Mr. George Grenvllle was 
one of the secretaries of state at the time Sir Philip 
Francis held that place in the Secretary of State's 
office, which had been given him by Lord Holland, 
and Mr. Whateley was then Mr. Grenville's private 
secretary. This contiguity of station would afford 
Sir Philip Francis frequent opportunities of acquir- 
ing all that intimate and ocular knowledge of Mr. 
Whately which is evinced by Junius.'^ That is, which 
is evinced by Junius in the letter signed ^'Henricus/^ 
and the one without signature, and which are not in 
the genuine edition. But Mr. Taylor proves too 
much ; for then Junius, if he were Sir Philip Francis, 
would also have been acquainted with Grenvllle, as 
Francis doubtless was, and there is nothing to hinder 
Grenvllle from becoming acquainted with Francis, 
where there is such ^^ intimacy '^ between Grenville's 
private secretary and Francis, and where there is such 
^^ contiguity of station.''^ Let us now produce positive 
proof on the other side from a genuine letter. Letter 
18 says : " It Is not my design to enter into a formal 
vindication of Mr. Grenvllle upon his own principles. 
I have neither the honor of being ])ersonally known to 
him, nor do I pretend to be completely master of the 
facts.'' But If Francis was Junius, this statement 
could not be true. 

While I am upon this subject of personal knowledge 
and acquaintance, let me bring forward something 
against Francis. It is well known that he attended 
school for about three years with Mr. Woodfall, and 
that a friendship strong and intimate existed between 



APPENDIX. 



329 



them through life. Put over against tliis, from pri- 
vate note to Woodfall, JN'o. 17, the following: ^^ I 
doubt much \Yhether I shall ever have the pleasure 
of knowing you; but if things take the turn I expect, 
you shall know me by my icorksJ' The italics are his 
own. Here is a positive statement that Junius did not 
know Woodfldl, and an implied one that Woodfall did 
not know Junius. If Francis was Junius, here is 
confusion confounded ; but if Paine was Junius, it is 
as clear as day. But to proceed. 

In regard to Bradshaw, Chamier, and Barrington, 
Taylor quotes from Domitkin, Veteran, Q. in the Cor- 
ner, and Arthur Tell Truth, all miscellaneous letters. 
He also quotes once from private note No. 52, which, 
like the two others I have shown, is undoubtedly a 
forgery. This note was dated January 25, 1772, and 
was written with the manifest purpose of paving the 
way to those four low and scurrilous attacks on Lord 
Barrington by Veteixm. These he began on the 28th, 
three days after the private note, and promised six- 
teen letters ^^ already written,^^ but only wrote four, 
when he exhausted himself JSTearly all the evidence in 
favor of Francis is taken from tliese letters. Taylor 
establishes 7iot a single fact under the first head from 
Junius, and I believe only quotes him once, and to 
prove nothing. I now proceed with the next count. 

^' Secondly, that he was intimately acquainted with 
the business of the War Office.'' In answer to this, I 
will quote Taylor, page 61, as follows: "But in the 
letters at the end of the third volume [Letters of Vet- 
eran, vol. ili, WoodfalPs Junius] it seems as if he 
was almost indifferent to discovery, he so clearly be- 



330 APPEy-niJC. 

trays his personal acquaintance with the proceedings 
of the Secretary of War." This he founds solely on 
Veteran. 

^'Thirdly, that he, during tlie year 1770, attended 
debates in the House of Ijords, and took notes of the 
speeclies, particularly of the speeches of Lord Chat- 
liam.'^ Taylor tries to establish this claim on the 
letter Y. Z., which is in the Miscellaneous collection. 
But I insist, Y. Z. must be proven to be Junius before 
any inference can be drawn from it. Taylor can not 
even prove that Francis wrote it. But he draws an 
inference from the following in Philo Junius: ^' In 
regard to Lord Camden, the truth is, that he inadvert- 
ently overshot himself, as appears plainly by that un- 
guarded mention of a tyranny of forty days, which I 
myself heard J^ The argument is, Junius lieard speeches 
in Parliament, and therefore miglit have been Francis, 
as speeches were not reported till long after. As this 
extract is from authority which I indorse, I will meet 
it by a passage from Thomas Paine's Crisis vii, show- 
ing tliat he also heard debates in Parliament. Speak- 
ing of national honor, he says: "I remember the late 
Admiral Saunders declaring in the House of Com- 
mons, and that in the time of peace, ^ that the city of 
Madrid laid in ashes was not a sufficient atonement 
for the Spaniards taking off the rudder of an English 
sloop of war.' " 

^^ Fourthly, that he bitterly resented the ajipoint- 
ment of ]\[r. Chamier to the place of Deputy Secretary 
at War." This is founded entirely on the letters of 
Veteran. 

"Fiftldy, that he was bound by some strong tie to 



APPENDIX. 331 

the first Lord Holland. '' This argument is founded 
on the Hilence of Junius in regard to Lord Holland, 
and one letter of Anti-Fox^ which is in the Miscella- 
neous collection. 

These five points, then, of Taylor's argument are all 
founded on unauthenticated letters, and yet Macaulay 
says: *' K* this argument does not settle the question, 
there is an end of all reasoning on circumstantial evi- 
dence.'^ But, if the evidence of those miscellaneous 
letters is to be taken as true, which were written 
nobody knows by whom, and collected forty years after 
Junius ceased writing, and which had been thrown out 
of the genuine edition by Junius himself, or had not 
yet been written, by what rule are we to be guided in 
settling the question? Let me present a difficulty at 
once. Suppose I am a Scotchman. I wish to make 
out a case for some one of my countrymen, and I turn 
to the Miscellaneous collection and find a letter signed 
Scofus. Ah! here is a Scotchman, as the signature 
denotes. I immediately begin to read, and to ray 
happiness the first sentence is an unqualified affirma- 
tion : " My lord, I am a Scotchman." This is posi- 
tive, I affirm; and then how delighted I am to find, in 
a private note, the assurance to Mr. AVoodfall that this 
letter " is factJ' And, more than this, tlie original 
manuscript is at this hour in existence. Now, all I 
have to do is to show" that this disguised hand resem- 
bles that of some cotemporary Scotchman's, and Scot- 
land has the honor. This shows how absolutely worth- 
less any argument is, founded on the Miscellaneous 
Letters. Query : Did not the experts depend largely 
on the manuscript of this spurious Scotch epistle to 



332 APPENDIX. 

make out a case of identity in handwriting? As the 
above five points which I have reviewed, form the 
head and body of Taylor's argument, it would be trifl- 
ing to attack the ajipendages. These hints will 
guide the reader. 

But the fact is, were the five points which Taylor 
enumerates and tries to prove from miscellaneous let- 
ters established, still there would be no case for Francis. 
But even admitting there is a good case made out for 
him on miscellaneous letters, there is nothing incompat- 
ible with my case in favor of Thomas Paine founded 
on the genuine Letters. This may be made manifest 
by the following further observations : 

There is no evidence of any weight brought forward 
to prove that Francis was Junius, because it is as- 
sumed that Junius wTote those miscellaneous letters, 
and especially Vetcran^s productions. But first prove 
tliat Junius was Veteran. This can not be done, and 
it is an important premise in the argument left out. 
It would be easier to prove that Francis was Veteran; 
and this I do not dispute. It makes my case far 
stronger to have a clear case made for Francis, founded 
on the spurious and miscellaneous letters. But that 
Junius did not write the letters which Taylor makes 
the foundation of his argument lliere is abundance of 
internal evidence to prove. The evidence of forgery 
I have already adduced. But could Francis have 
forged the hand of Junius ? I answer yes ; and for 
the following reasons : 

1. His acquaintance, friendship, intimacy, and pe- 
culiar political views would give a ready access to 
WoodfalPs office. 



APPENDIX. 333 

2. The handwriting of Junius could not be kept a 
secret for it went to the compositors. Nor did Wood- 
fall keep it from the public ; nor did he even keep the 
secrets of Junius as he ought to have done, for it was 
from Woodflill himself that Garrick obtained the fact 
that Junius would write no more, after he had com- 
piled his work. 

3. After getting a specimen of the disguised hand 
of Junius, Francis could easily forge it. As evidence 
of this I quote from Taylor, p. 278, as follows : ^' It 
has been observed of him [Francis] that he possessed 
so perfect a command of his pen that he could write 
every kind of hand.^^ Taylor acknowledges this ex- 
traordinary power of Francis. 

Now take with the above three facts the internal 
evidence of forgery, both in the spirit and on the face 
of the letters, and we have a strong case in favor of 
Francis forging the hand of Junius, but assuming the 
name of Veteran, 

But again, private notes may be forged .as well as 
letters for publication, which injures them as evidence. 
And who shall decide at this late day on forgeries? 
I have herein adduced enough evidence to throw great 
doubt on the Miscellaneous Letters, and if any thuig 
can be proven from internal evidence, which is ac- 
knowledged by all to be the best in the world ; then 
two letters and two private notes accompanying them, 
I have shown in the language of Junius to be sinirious. 
The truth is, there is nothing absolutely safe outside 
of the genuine edition, for this alone has the plain 
and positive approval of Junius. Moreover, it was 
compiled for the purpose of sifting the cheat from the 



334 APPENDIX. 

pure grain, and as Junius had assumed one other signa- 
ture besides his own^ he thought it necessary to cast 
out other publications falsely attributed to him, and 
unqualifiedly states in reference to Philo Junius, " The 
fraud was innocent, and I always intended to explain 
\tJ^ Why was he thus explicit if he had been writing 
continually over other signatures? 

Besides the above, the letters of Junius are finished 
productions, which took much time and care to write, 
and Junius could not therefore be the author of all 
those miscellaneous letters attributed to him in Wood- 
falPs edition, for the time is too short to produce them. 
But it is preposterous to assume that Francis could 
attend to his clerical duties, and often take down 
speeches in Parliament, and at the same time write all 
those letters, both genuine and miscellaneous. 

Again in the genuine Letters, there is perfect har- 
mony from the first to the last. There is the same 
sentiment, spirit, object and style, throughout the 
whole, and not a single contradiction anywhere to be 
found. Thiri can not be said of the Miscellaneous Let- 
ters, as I have already shown. I would particularly 
call attention to the language of Junius when charged 
by Mr. Home of writing under various signatures, and 
that he was known. To this Junius responds: ^* I 
rely on the consciousness of my own integrity , and defy 
him to fix any colorable charge of inconsistency upon 
me." The whole life, as well as writings of Thomas 
Paine, sustains this assertion. I have studied Paine 
and Junius with this affirmation in view, and never 
have I found Paine to express an opinion inconsistent 
with Junius. Sometimes there is a change of opinion 



APPENDIX. 335 

which he intiicates or points out. For example, Junius 
thought highly of the English army. Paine had rea- 
son to change his mind in regard to it, and he says, he 
once thought the same and reasoned from the same 
prejudices. 

These facts are enough to open the eyes of the 
reader, and to show him that Taylor's Junius Identi- 
fied, is a literary fraud no douht innocently perpe- 
trated. Taylor jumped at a conclusion, namely, that 
the Miscellaneous Letters were the letters of Junius, 
and took them as authority, Avithout one thought of 
inquiry into their authenticity. But his great work 
should have been, first to 'p^'^^'^ the Miscellaneous 
Letters genuine. After this he should have shown 
that Francis was a Scotchman, who was chagrined at 
the abuse of the Scotch, and at the same time was an 
Englishman who was intensely exasperated at the 
Scotch, and that these two facts are not inconsistent 
with his being an Irishman. 

In conclusion, I will submit the following letter of 
Francis in rejily to the editor of the Monthly Magazine, 
who had made inquiry of Sir Philip, in regard to his 
being the author of the Letters of Junius : 

July, 181e3. 
Sir — The great civility of your letter induces me to 
answer it, wliich, with reference merely to its subject 
matter, I should have declined. Whether you will as- 
sist in giving currency to a silly, malignant falsehood, 
is a question for your own discretion. To me it is a 
matter of perfect indifference. 

I am sir, vours, etc., 

■p. FRANCIS. 

I think the word silly in the above letter has a tell- 
in cr siscnificance. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

HHH 

020 661 507 2 



